SHRI RAMVIR GIRI AND ORS. vs SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.

2024-10-07 Information

$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1987/2018

SHRI RAMVIR GIRI AND ORS. …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pramod Kr. Sharma, Mr. Manish Kr. Sharma and Ms. Neeti Bhardwaj, Advs.

versus

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
AND ANR. …..Respondent
Through: Ms. Anju Gupta, Mr. Bhuvan Goel and Mr. Shubham Grover, Advs.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
% 07.10.2024

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The petitioners are working as Chowkidars with the MCD. They approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal1 by way of TA No.223/2009, seeking regularisation. The TA was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by order dated 2 February 2012, with a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioners as per the scheme of regularisation followed by the respondents and inter alia keeping in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v Umadevi2.

2. The respondents passed an order on 14 March 2013 rejecting the petitioners prayer for regularisation. Assailing the said order, the petitioners re-approached the learned Tribunal by way of OA 3197/2014 reiterating their prayer for regularisation and praying that the order dated 14 March 2013 be set aside.

3. The impugned order dated 19 January 2017, passed by the learned Tribunal, notes the fact that Petitioner 1 Ramvir Giri had annexed, with his application, his initial appointment letters, showing him to have been appointed against a vacant post of Chowkidar, as well as his attendance sheets.

4. Para 7 of the order notes the bone of contention as being whether the applicants were engaged on regular basis as daily wager Chowkidars against a vacant post without break or they were engaged to work in the leave vacancy of a regular Chowkidar.

5. Having thus noted the issue in controversy, the learned Tribunal has not examined either the documents by which the petitioners were originally appointed, or the regularisation policy of the respondents or the issue of whether the appointment of the petitioners was consequent to any notification or advertisement. All that the learned Tribunal has done is to state that the chart filed by Petitioner 1 indicated that they were engaged as leave substitutes, and that this confirmed the respondents case.

6. We are not satisfied with the manner in which the learned Tribunal has dealt with the case. We are of the opinion that the relevant aspects which should have been examined by the learned Tribunal have not been gone into.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The OA 3197/2014 is remanded to the learned Tribunal for consideration afresh.

8. As the petitioners are Chowkidars, the learned Tribunal is requested to deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible. Learned Counsel for the parties would, for the said purpose, present themselves before the learned Tribunal on 21 October 2024. The learned Tribunal would endeavour to hear both parties on the said date. No adjournment would be sought by either party.

9. The learned Tribunal is thereafter requested to decide the OA as expeditiously as possible.

10. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

11. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioners to the relief sought by them or of the merits of the stand urged by the respondents. All issues of fact and law shall remain open for agitation before the learned Tribunal.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
OCTOBER 7, 2024/aky

Click here to check corrigendum, if any
1 the learned Tribunal, hereinafter
2 2006 (4) SCC 1

—————

————————————————————

—————

————————————————————